Review Reports - Human–Computer Interaction (HCI) Advances to Re-Contextualize Cultural Heritage toward Multiperspectivity, Inclusion, and Sensemaking

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, you should not remain stuck on the idea that human-computer interaction (HCI) could facilitate a priority protection of the user, and in particular of vulnerable groups, because this protection can only be provided by the provisions of appropriate legislation, which you do not refer to. So that the 'dominant Western narratives' can be contradicted, it would be better to refer both to the legislation and to the practical measures taken to protect the computer user.

I also collegially recommend that you go beyond the stage of pro domo understanding, and the style of reflexive approaches to the four cases presented, and specify what your contribution to the progress of recontextualizing the cultural heritage of certain peoples actually consists in.

In Conclusion, I recommend that you revise the text of the paper - even a minor revision - in order to publish your paper.

Author Response

Comment 1: In my opinion, you should not remain stuck on the idea that human-computer interaction (HCI) could facilitate a priority protection of the user, and in particular of vulnerable groups, because this protection can only be provided by the provisions of appropriate legislation, which you do not refer to. So that the 'dominant Western narratives' can be contradicted, it would be better to refer both to the legislation and to the practical measures taken to protect the computer user.

Response 1: We agree with the reviewer and thank them for pointing out the need to emphasize this in our work. We clarified that we are looking at the topic from HCI perspective only and that changes in other areas are needed as well.

Comment 2: "I also collegially recommend that you go beyond the stage of pro domo understanding, and the style of reflexive approaches to the four cases presented, and specify what your contribution to the progress of recontextualizing the cultural heritage of certain peoples actually consists in."

Response 2: We understand that the contribution was not entirely clear in our first draft and improved it throughout the paper, incl. abstract, introduction, case studies, discussion and conclusion.

Comment 3: In Conclusion, I recommend that you revise the text of the paper - even a minor revision - in order to publish your paper.

Response 3: Yes, we agree and thank the reviewer for the opportunity to strengthen our paper with their valuable feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors wrote about research where they aim to explore possible improvements in HCI to enable a better sense of multiculturalism.

They clearly explain the background and give a good literature review.

The overview of case studies is well-written and easy to understand. The research method is clear and the text is easy to follow.

The discussion is up to the point explaining findings and proving the paper's worth.

The only part that is missing is to point out the main result in a separate section and bring more figures showing different HCi approaches with a statement of which one serves better in which context.

The conclusion has to be expanded to point out contributions explicitly.

Author Response

Comment 1: "The only part that is missing is to point out the main result in a separate section and bring more figures showing different HCi approaches with a statement of which one serves better in which context."

Response 1: We iterated on the case studies and added a "Summary of Case Studies". However, as we do not have a valid long-term comparison of approaches, we cannot recommend which are better. However, we emphasized the reasons for methods and approaches presented in the case studies.

Comment 2: "The conclusion has to be expanded to point out contributions explicitly"

Response 2: We agree that our contribution needed improvements and thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We extended and adapted the conclusion with the following text (new text highlighted in bold):

Exploring HCI advances for CH re-contextualization illustrates a profound entanglement that transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries. Our four case studies highlighted that technology acts not merely as a tool but as CH itself, indicating a paradigm shift in which HCI becomes an integral component of cultural production, dissemination, and preservation, and thus, a crucial factor in CH re-contextualization. Thereby, HCI serves as a mediator and manifestation of CH, impacting how HCI can support CH re-contextualization. Considering HCI as a mediator requires adapting methodological approaches and interaction design concepts that allow users to change perspectives and trigger compassion and understanding for their own and other cultures, setting CH in focus. In comparison, considering HCI as CH manifestation opened multiple research questions we must address in future work.

This partially new role introduces challenges and ethical considerations. For one, CH re-contextualization requires a nuanced understanding of the socio-cultural contexts, emphasizing the need to adopt slow and reflective HCI approaches to technological interventions in CH when HCI acts as a mediator. Furthermore, enabling multiperspectivity and inclusion demands a reevaluation of conventional research and design practices, focusing on empowering local communities and safeguarding diverse narratives and individual perspectives (see sections 3.1-3.3). In comparison, HCI as CH comprises the impact of technology on behavior changes, social norms, and communication styles, as well as the increasing digitization of our cultural heritage and (non-) available access to having such digitization and preservation means (section 3.3-3.4).

Ultimately, the complexities of HCI-CH entanglements are an ethical imperative and an exercise in envisioning a more inclusive and cohesive society. Our work suggests re-contextualizing CH and its communication by adapting HCI tools, methods, and approaches and considering the inherited cultural role of HCI that shapes the preservation of past, current, and future CH.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topics faced in the manuscript are of great interest and several crucial aspects in the use of HCI for CH are presented and discussed.

However, the four case studies are described with poor details and provide an insight too general for the reader. For each case study, the aim, activities carried on and outcomes of the project might be dealt with in depth.

In addition, conclusions should be more closely related to and supported by the specific outcomes of the case studies.

Finally, some words might be mispelled due to the autocorrect: please, check the use of the word "agnostic / agonistic" (lines 24, 58, 126, 128, 628).

Author Response

Comment 1: However, the four case studies are described in poor detail and provide an insight that is too general for the reader. The aim, activities carried out, and outcomes of the project might be dealt with in depth for each case study.

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for raising the concerned point. Each case study was slightly altered strengthening the connection between the overarching topic and the case studies. However, we also want to emphasize that the case studies are mainly based on previously published (and cited) work. It is not the idea to duplicate the studies but to elevate the prior research experiences to a meta-level reflection.

Comment 2: In addition, conclusions should be more closely related to and supported by the specific outcomes of the case studies.

Response 2: We agree that the relationship should be made clear and iterate on each case study, added a summary for the case studies, and restructured and extended our discussion. Also, we referred in the conclusion to the case studies that contributed to the respective learning outcome.

Comment 3: Finally, some words might be mispelled due to the autocorrect: please, check the use of the word "agnostic / agonistic" (lines 24, 58, 126, 128, 628).

Response 3: We appreciate the reviewer's attention to detail and corrected the content. We are also using Grammarly to double-check our writing.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following review is for the article “HCI Advances to Re-contextualize Cultural Heritage toward Multiperspectivity, Inclusion, and Sensemaking”.

+ Good literature review.

First, I will give some general comments and typos; then, I will present a couple of points that, from my point of view, should be addressed to improve the presented work:

+ The abstract does not present the research's results or principal key points.

+ Lines 33-35 , please leave it open. Digital and social media have increased, but they are not the only ones.

+ Lines 38-40 , please give some examples.

+ Line 55, there is a typo in the citation [].

+ Line 83 – 91. I see what you propose, which is important. But HCI studies the relationship of several factors in the interaction of Users with Software/Hardware. Therefore, I suggest you emphasize the interaction with CH software or CH computer-mediated experiences.

+ Line 247 delete ,

+Line 241 space between citation [] and word.

In the manuscript, it looks like some ideas are redundant, for example:

+ Line 99

+ Lines 579 – 581

Some points to address:

+ I found that the four cases need to be reworked. The structured analysis is not clear, and there is no central argument that unifies the four cases.

+ The last case, is abstract. I don't see any relationship with the main core of the research.

+ Authors may check UCD methodologies and how this can be coupled with the results of their cases.

+ Authors may present the cases in a diagram clarifying the input, output,

+ Authors may relate their work to include other methodologies and relate these results with CH for the designed computer-mediated experience or software.

+ Authors state: “The four case studies above underscore the role of technology as a mediator of social interactions and a vehicle for cultural expression, indicating the role of HCI in re-contextualizing CH” This statement should not be made since it presents “causality” where there is no experimental research about the relationship between technology as a mediator in CH (see mediation analysis or regression analysis or SEM).

+ There is a need to structure in a different way the four study cases, authors state: “Crucially, none of the case studies is about HCI per se, but about the different roles played by digital technologies in redefining CH in different contexts, as well as articulating social relationships and communications around it.” But, since there is no methodology to structure the four cases, it looks like conclusions are made by the hints or experience of the authors rather than the analysis of data (qualitative or quantitative) in each case. This part must be improved because it is the weaker part of the research.

Finally, I hope authors find this report useful. I just tried to point out some directions and relevant points to consider since I believe the topic is important. Even more, it presents the results in a structured way so that key elements can be considered about HCI, especially for CH. With all of this, I think you will build a stronger case.

Author Response

Comment 1: The abstract does not present the research's results or principal key points.

Response 1: We agree that the results and key points needed to be improved and changed the abstract as can be found below:

"Today's social and political movements demand a re-contextualization of cultural heritage towards inclusivity, multiperspectivity, and sensemaking, countering dominant Western narratives. Our work approaches this challenge from a Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) perspective, questioning how HCI approaches, tools, and methods can contribute to CH re-contextualization. Through collaborative reflection in five online meetings, we identified four diverging case studies highlighting the different roles of HCI, and its increasing entanglement with CH. Case studies 1-3 focus on HCI as a medium for CH, 4 on digital CH, and, by that, on the HCI-CH entanglement. Our reflections contribute to CH re-contextualization by highlighting the need for co- and slow design approaches, the role of HCI technologies in preserving, communicating, and shaping CH, and open questions and challenges related to the increasing HCI-CH convergence."

Comments 2: Lines 33-35 , please leave it open. Digital and social media have increased, but they are not the only ones. + Lines 38-40 , please give some examples + Line 55, there is a typo in the citation [] + Line 247 delete , + Line 241 space between citation [] and word.

Response 2: We thank the reviewer for bringing these points to our attention. We corrected them in the text and added examples.

Comment 3: + Line 83 – 91. I see what you propose, which is important. But HCI studies the relationship of several factors in the interaction of Users with Software/Hardware. Therefore, I suggest you emphasize the interaction with CH software or CH computer-mediated experiences.

Response 3: We thank the author for their opinion and agree that the scope of HCI is larger than what we cover. We emphasized our focus but will keep the "HCI" terminology because we want to ensure that it is not only about the technology but also the design approaches and methods, e.g. co-design.

Comment 4: In the manuscript, it looks like some ideas are redundant, for example: + Line 99 + Lines 579 – 581

Response 4: Unfortunately, we could not find the redundant idea at those lines. However, we iterated and streamlined the paper as much as possible.

Comments 5: I found that the four cases need to be reworked. The structured analysis is not clear, and there is no central argument that unifies the four cases. + The last case, is abstract. I don't see any relationship with the main core of the research + Authors may check UCD methodologies and how this can be coupled with the results of their cases. + + Authors may present the cases in a diagram clarifying the input, output,

Response 5: We understand that, due to the paper's nature of providing a meta-reflection, it might be harder to review by not following a classic research paper structure. We restructured the paper to follow a more classic research paper structure and added a section about collaborative reflection as the qualitative research method. Also, we extended Table 1 and the explanation about our case study selection.

Comment 6: Authors may relate their work to include other methodologies and relate these results with CH for the designed computer-mediated experience or software.

Response 6:

Comment 7: Authors state: “The four case studies above underscore the role of technology as a mediator of social interactions and a vehicle for cultural expression, indicating the role of HCI in re-contextualizing CH” This statement should not be made since it presents “causality” where there is no experimental research about the relationship between technology as a mediator in CH (see mediation analysis or regression analysis or SEM).

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for sharing their concerns and rephrasing the statement. However, we also want to emphasize the validity of qualitative research and the benefits of observations, meta-level reflections, and collaborative reflections, which were applied here.

Comment 8: There is a need to structure in a different way the four study cases, authors state: “Crucially, none of the case studies is about HCI per se, but about the different roles played by digital technologies in redefining CH in different contexts, as well as articulating social relationships and communications around it.” But, since there is no methodology to structure the four cases, it looks like conclusions are made by the hints or experience of the authors rather than the analysis of data (qualitative or quantitative) in each case. This part must be improved because it is the weaker part of the research.

Response 8: We understand the concerns and restructured the paper, added a section about collaborative reflection, and separated the case study summary from the discussion. Also, we iterated the case study descriptions to emphasize the learnings derived.

Comment 9: Finally, I hope authors find this report useful. I just tried to point out some directions and relevant points to consider since I believe the topic is important. Even more, it presents the results in a structured way so that key elements can be considered about HCI, especially for CH. With all of this, I think you will build a stronger case.

Response 9: Yes, we agree and would like to thank the reviewer again for their time and valuable feedback. We aim to provide the best contributions possible and think that your feedback helped us move in the right direction.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate all revisions made by the authors: in particular, the inclusion of a summary of the case studies supports the reader for a better understanding of the work. The expanded and revised Discussion and Conclusions increase the overall value of tge manuscript.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their time and effort and are happy that the revised paper meets their standards for publication.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thanks for addressing all the comments of the review.

I believe the manuscripts have improved in quality. However, some points still need a deeper examination.

With respect to:

I want to reiterate that I am not discrediting the validity of qualitative research in any way. Qualitative research is just as robust as quantitative research. However, the statement you presented should not be made if you are considering causality.

See for mediation analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2819368/ or read from Hayes or Kenny. (just to understand the nature of my comment and not to do or propose any analysis on this work)

Despite the authors' efforts to revise the article, a clearer structure for the four study cases is still necessary. The methodology, case analysis process, classification, hypotheses, etc., are not clearly outlined. It seems that conclusions are drawn from the authors' intuition or experience rather than from a thorough analysis of the data (qualitative or quantitative) in each case.

How can other authors follow and replicate your research? How can they repeat your cases in different countries? Under which framework, process, or pipeline can they establish an analysis of the collected data? These questions help establish a common ground for presenting the work.

This is important to ensure replication and for HCI-CH researchers to understand how you addressed the research.

I hope the authors find this helpful report. I believe the topic is important but needs clarification.

Author Response

Comment 1: "I want to reiterate that I am not discrediting the validity of qualitative research in any way. Qualitative research is just as robust as quantitative research. However, the statement you presented should not be made if you are considering causality."

Response 1: We thank the reviewer for ensuring scientific validity in submitted contributions; we agree that we do not want to introduce another spurious correlation and keep the changes as presented in our last iteration.

Comment 2: "Despite the authors' efforts to revise the article, a clearer structure for the four study cases is still necessary. The methodology, case analysis process, classification, hypotheses, etc., are not clearly outlined. It seems that conclusions are drawn from the authors' intuition or experience rather than from a thorough analysis of the data (qualitative or quantitative) in each case."

Response 2: We extended our "Case Study Selection and Collaborative Reflection" section, including the core questions guiding our collaborative reflection meetings. However, our work does not have hypotheses or a structured analysis process, as it was based on open discussions, qualitative data, and already published work.

Comment 3: "How can other authors follow and replicate your research? How can they repeat your cases in different countries? Under which framework, process, or pipeline can they establish an analysis of the collected data? These questions help establish a common ground for presenting the work."

Response 3: Other researchers can follow our approach regarding conducting a workshop first and follow it up with collaborative reflections in online meetings. However, the results are not repeatable due to the qualitative nature of our work. Other researchers will have different perspectives and different cast studies to share, which will result in different focuses and insights. Even if others would reflect on the same case studies as ours, the results might be different. Yet, our work aims to trigger other researchers to reflect on the HCI-CH entanglement in their own work and share their observations with us in return.